| Louis Blair 2006-08-02, 10:41 pm |
| Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:14:39 GMT):
quote:
> The current issue addresses who can even understand
> the need to analyse games in order to make chessic
> comments about them. What does Taylor Kingston
> think he is about? We see a group of people who can
> freely criticise GMs at chess making very slight and
> slighting references, but who are unable even to look
> at a chess diagram of their own choice either chessically
> understand it, or historically note that the position is
> infamous.
_
If Phil Innes reads the review, he will find a discussion of
specific moves in the part of the review that refers to
annotations that "are more than 'light notes'" while not
containing "great depth".
_
Duras-Teichmann-Ostende-1906 is briefly mentioned in
a different part of the review where another aspect of the
Soltis book was discussed:
_
"there is ... a literary and historical problem:
a lack of context and setting for many of these
games. ... Occasionally, ... [Soltis] provides
good scene-setting, but in other cases, we
must content ourselves with the thumbnail
biographies.
_
... It's interesting that Oldrich Duras gave up
chess in 1914 after marrying a wealthy
woman, but this has no relevance to his win
over Teichmann at Ostende 1906. I am
surprised and amused that Veselin Topalov
once tried bullfighting, but ...
In short, too often we don't learn ... THE
STORY OF THE PARTICULAR GAME
_
A contrasting approach is found in Ludek
Pachman's Decisive Games in Chess
History (1975). ...
...
... Pachman sets the stage, puts us on the
scene." - Taylor Kingston
_
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf
|